I retract any and all CFJs
We could even not burden the arbitor further with text such as
"Any player may, without objection, make themselves judge of any
unassigned CFJ they reasonably believe to be wholly insubstantial
and frivolous and assign it a judgement of DISMISS"
(Stealing the words whol
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:27 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> You're right, the rules are strangely different as to deregistration.
> Probably because it has consequences by barring you from registering for a
> while. I think when playing a game, the form "I'll do X" is acceptable as
> "I do X". eg: "I'll g
You're right, the rules are strangely different as to deregistration.
Probably because it has consequences by barring you from registering for a
while. I think when playing a game, the form "I'll do X" is acceptable as
"I do X". eg: "I'll go to attacks" is always interpreted as "I go to
attacks" in
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:21 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.
> >
> > Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if
> > I dereg
> > for now."
> > unambiguous intent to deregi
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:17 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.
>
> Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if I dereg
> for now."
> unambiguous intent to deregister?
This is irrelevant, unambiguously intending to deregister does
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I have no clue what the appropriate response is, so I'm just going to
> restrict this to a technical point (note that I take no game actions
> in this message): you have to actually say "I deregister".
Or to clarify: you don't have to use t
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:21 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I'm forwarding this message, which I originally sent to omd, to a-d in
> the hopes that it might find an answer here. I feel kind of awkward
> doing this, but it needs an answer so I can resolve the case, and I
> don't have time at the momen
You might be surprised at this, but I'll be sad to see you go, and glad if you
return. While I agree with others that certain ideas you've tried were poorly
thought out at best, and that you carried them on far longer than was wise, in
other respects you've shown some interesting capacity for ex
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister.
>
> In my defense for the latest thing, I did take a situation which is entirely
> innocuous to the rest of the game (trust tokens, who uses them? And even
> then, you could
P.S. I know I'm late on all of my obligations, and I'll catch up on
them this weekend.
-Aris
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I'm forwarding this message, which I originally sent to omd, to a-d in
> the hopes that it might find an answer here. I feel kind of awkward
> doi
Actually, this proposal is seriously flawed. A person can always claim
to have believed that something they tried (however unreasonably), and
honest players like G. get caught in the crossfire when they do things
they're unsure of. A better way to do this is a reasonable person
standard (complain a
I'm forwarding this message, which I originally sent to omd, to a-d in
the hopes that it might find an answer here. I feel kind of awkward
doing this, but it needs an answer so I can resolve the case, and I
don't have time at the moment to draft a better email.
-- Forwarded message --
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 00:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we
>> do with Calls for Judgement?
>
> I'm not sure about "useful", given that by definition they have no
> precedential
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 00:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we
> > do with Calls for Judgement?
>
> I'm not sure about "useful", given that by definition they have no
> precedential value,
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 00:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we
> do with Calls for Judgement?
I'm not sure about "useful", given that by definition they have no
precedential value, but it would at least be interesting (and part of
the
Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we do with
Calls for Judgement?
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
> comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation issues
> (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge. Why
> does
> this
On Jul 20, 2017 10:02 PM, "Alex Smith" wrote:
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>
> As the proposal’s imminen
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on
>> behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find
>> justification in the rules, is plainly and obvious
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 19:19 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
>> cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the
>> interests of the game. As the player who s
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>>
>> As the propo
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>
> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by
> V.
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on
> behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find
> justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional
> misinterpretation of the rules. E knew t
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by V.J Rada, I
believe that this fails and will record that you paid nothing to do nothing
unless someone
On Jul 20, 2017 9:19 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I find that a Red Card is appropriate, and hereby issue one to Cuddlebeam
by summary judgement.
I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
cares neither about the feeli
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on
behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find
justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional
misin
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 19:19 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
> cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the
> interests of the game. As the player who spoke most strongly in eir
> support when this whole mess sta
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
There is some ambiguity of what, exactly, a nickel is. Common
knowledge tells us it is a metal, but one would rarely refer to an
amount of nickel as "a nickel" without qualification--a lump of
nickel, or a vein, or an atom. Nickel is ultimately an a
On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:14 AM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> I Point a Finger at Cuddlebeam for a violation of R2471 for attempting
> to publish a Surveyor report when e was not the Surveyor. As
> Cuddlebeam has had over a week since the CFJ ruling that e was not the
> Surveyor and one week since I
I think Less Strict Faking by nichdel would probably end the game as we
know it but Less Strict Faking by nichdel is the only thing that can save
it imo.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
> I got yours, I just didn't wanna say anything because I thought it might
> be fu
I got yours, I just didn't wanna say anything because I thought it might be
funny
-grok
On Jul 20, 2017 8:09 PM, "V.J Rada" wrote:
I already did this. Did my message not send?
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I already did this. Did my message not send?
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> >
On 07/20/17 19:07, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>>>
>>> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
>>> to be possible so as to deceive others.
> What's the standard for belief.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada" wrote:
> Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
> Title: Pledges, again.
> Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
> {{{
> No message shall be construed as a pledg
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
What's the standard for belief. Like, if I'm 50/50 "eh, this might or mi
I don’t like this because I like the usability for private contracts and
the lack of need for the explicit “pledge” term.
The explicit "pledge" term could be "intent to make a pledge" instead. I
can think of at least one example ("outside the statute of limitations" as
it were) in which I promised
On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada" wrote:
Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
Title: Pledges, again.
Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
{{{
No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
"pledge".
A pledge is "publically made" o
I'd really appreciate if someone pended this.
It'd be very useful in the following hypothetical: Imagine, if you will,
an extremely belligerent player that tries a deluge of 'scams' with
arguments full of special pleading, whatboutism, and
innocence-by-ignorance that could only be interepreted by
I don’t like this because I like the usability for private contracts and the
lack of need for the explicit “pledge” term.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:16 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> Also I need to spend my money before it gets bl
Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
Title: Pledges, again.
Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
{{{
No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
"pledge".
A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is
publi
On Jul 20, 2017 6:07 PM, "V.J Rada" wrote:
Oh man there's always nothing better than waking up
to 20 new messages and a Cuddlebeam scam.
You're a pair of scare quotes short of my perception of the morning.
-grok
Oh man there's always nothing better than waking up
to 20 new messages and a Cuddlebeam scam.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a
> mention of that
> > property which is
You also created an organization with a Japanese charter, which is
acceptable because nothing says that chaarters have to be
understandable. But it also hasn't been allowed to do anything
meaningful. By the same token you could make a proposal in any language,
pend it andd vote on it, but whether i
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a mention of
> that
> property which is no substitute of actually having that property. (i.e.
> calling a
> car which isn't red a "red car" doesn't magically change its colour)
> [consider this
That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a mention
of that property which is no substitute of actually having that property.
(i.e. calling a car which isn't red a "red car" doesn't magically change
its colour) [consider this a gratuitous argument if it does go to a CFJ]
天火狐
I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a
non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at voting
in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to interpret
the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic differences, using
another la
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Josh T wrote:
> I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
> check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are to
> be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust tokens
> and one needs such
I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are to
be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust
tokens and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the
latter
>First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM
humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message",
> yes. "Public X" in gener
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message", yes.
> "Public X" in general?
> I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need to be
> a public message,
> just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via you
Woo, I was on the right track then. It's just that assembling these
findings into scams where I'm still in milk teeth with when it comes to
Agora.
Tbh I perhaps should dedicate time to studying the whole ruleset but
getting told where I'm wrong is less punishing than needing to elbow down
and memo
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> ...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
> useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
> references to a single term.
grepping through the ruleset is easy if you've read the ruleset.
Oh, and here's a couple where unclarity works as intended!
> Magenta (M): During Agora's Birthday, each person who has publicly
> acknowledged the
> fact qualifies for a Magenta Ribbon.
If this said "persons CAN acknowledge Agora's Birthday by announcement", this
would
mean everyone would hav
...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
references to a single term.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limit
>But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
reading of the rules.
>From your point of view, likely so. Imo its hardly as much, but still an
uncomfortable amount. I think its taken as much because I sometimes have
different opinions on what the rules mean. (for example, t
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply
>> to
>> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an
>> announcement
>> of intent to perform
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply
> to
> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an
> announcement
> of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything "public" but that
> isn'
Sadly, I must concur with G. in his assessment of your scams. I appreciate his
willingness to engage with evidence in response to your scams as I considered
referencing the definition, but thought better of it.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 2
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
> ("public means
> that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be public
> itself and
> understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible
>
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to
> anyoneAll of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem
> to have broken that, regardless of what you believe
Every actual by-announcement Agoran action that has
>that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to
anyone
All of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem to have
broken that, regardless of what you believe (I understand your Cantus but I
doubt people should change their (already debated) convictions because
Sure, all yours.
And Ais523: We have serious CFJs about... a joke. Sending a nickle. I don't
know what's the standard for CFJs right now, but people seem to be grasping
at straws at what could be turned to become interesting. I'm alright with
sending my CFJ at a period of relative lull like this (
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the information to
> whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give bob 2
> shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the shiny-officer
> and then enjoy
Exactly.
Wouldn't then withdrawing need to have something like, "something
something, you can withdraw by specifying a ballot, and then the specified
ballot is withdrawn"? Or why is arbitrary choice allowed there and not in
making proposal text or something? (which seems to need explicit "yes, you
yay, merit for me! ty.
(I wonder if its possible to connect this to the other discovery that
unregulated actions actually can't touch the gamestate lol.)
Anyway, the hashed argument was just "lol I like boobs". Intentionally made
to be inane so that it could be easily detected if it was in the Ju
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT. If
> > I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> > wouldn't matter. If I obeyed the Original, ther
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know if
> encryption
> (and eventually public asymmetric information in general, really) can be
> applied to
> Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them, yes? Just like the
> tr
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
> arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
> that a text is there.
>
>
It's not about whether it's arbitrary, it's about whether we're empowe
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
>> > Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies
(However when you create a certain X, it then needs to meet requisites to
actually spawn, if there are any. I'm assuming that, like with ballots, if
its "a thing" without any requisites, it can be any)
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> If we don't specify that proposal text c
If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
that a text is there.
...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No
Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?)
On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
ballot".
"A ballot". That's "any" bal
And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
ballot".
"A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
So "a T
But it doesn't exist. It can just potentially exist. Just because 'a rotten
banana' or 'a Murphy trust token' are validly described and plausibly
existent things doesn't mean an instantiation currently exists, that you
have access to that instantiation, or that you can create that
instantiation.
O
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this method,
> I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
> would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
> it (which woul
It kind of reminds me when I tried to give myself a "Badge that doesn't
exist yet" (R2415: Any player CAN award a badge that does not yet exist)
with a bunch of overpowered things because a badge with those overpowered
things actually doesn't exist - so I can attempt to grant such an
impossible bad
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:24 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at all.
>> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when the
>> CFJ queue is empty enough (and i
I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this method,
I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token", which
But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
force otger players to create tokens.
On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ a
You when by bein issued trust tokens _by_ players, so I don't think it
matters who tge token is supposedly originally from. Even if you
successfully issued a Murphy trust token to me, it was still issued by you
and not Murphy.
On Jul 20, 2017 08:07, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
> This isn't consequentia
Also, before I forget, this is "Message A", in SHA256:
522EF772154A383CA26D3DC4EAA2ADBEF1ADFA187D0F7AA32D44F01F468AFF05
1EB9270A02E632866CBB1C3D4F5386A3BBE6EE2BF449C6B47B157134F891352F
AB5DF625BC76DBD4E163BED2DD888DF828F90159BB93556525C31821B6541D46
57CD837632D54FAC4362750ACA05EC813BF493527AEE9337
Sent.
...Now I brace myself.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if
> you do not mind.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius
I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if you
do not mind.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know if
Keeping the spirit of what Kerim intended, what if they used some bijective
function instead?
Perhaps use multiple ways of writing the same promise in regular language,
hash all of those in different ways, and then claim to promise what all of
those hashes have in common (there must be a better wa
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT. If
> I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> wouldn't matter. If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some very
> low but nonzero chan
85 matches
Mail list logo
